DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15:
The preambles of claims 1 and 15 recite that the method is directed to “making a material for an article”. However, the body of the claim relates to the treatment of a machine component and also requires that the recited HfO2 film that is deposited onto the component is part of the material referenced in the preamble. The construction renders unclear what are the metes and bounds of “a material”, the metes and bounds of “an article” , and the metes and bounds of “a component of a machine”. A material can include the materials of a component, and materials of a machine; an article is a broad concept that can be the same or separate as a component or a machine. See also dependent claims 7, 8,17 which constructively includes additional express species/films as part of a “material” and thus suggests a broad scope for what is a material. In essence, the scope of the preamble is not commensurate in scope with the recited steps of the body of the claim.
Dependent claims not enumerated above are rejected on the basis of their parent claims.
Claims 12 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kakiuchi et al. US 20190291437 A1 (hereinafter “Kakiuchi”) as evidenced by or further in view of Chen et al. US 20180281425 A1 (hereinafter “Chen’425”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7:
Kakiuchi is directed to methods of manufacturing liquid discharge heads for e.g. inkjet printing (Abstract; [0003]). Kakiuchi discloses that their method comprises:
providing a stacked body comprising a piezoelectric element, a lead electrode/trace, a liquid flow channel, a first space, and a second space and a third space which are arranged to sandwich the first space therebetween in a first direction [internal cavities] (claim 14; [0005], [0009], [0053],[0096] – [0102], [0108]; Fig. 7B, Fig. 9); and
conformally depositing a protective film comprising at least one of TaOx, HfOx (e.g. HfO2), AlOx and ZrOx by atomic layer deposition (ALD), at a thickness between 1nm and 50 nm, or more preferably between 10nm and 30nm ([0066] – [0067]), onto all exposed surfaces of the stacked body, including internal cavities (Fig. 10; [0110] – [0112]).
Kakiuchi discloses that HfO2 is particularly useful as it is insoluble to both alkali solutions and acidic solutions, including acidic/alkaline inks ([0066]).
Kakiuchi does not expressly teach that the thickness set for the HfO2 film would be a thickness that would avoid formation of pinholes, thin spots and nodule growth.
However, Kakiuchi discloses that preferred embodiments of their method set the thickness of the deposited HfO2 film between 10nm to 30nm ([0067]) . It is reasonable to presume that the property of pinhole, thin spot and nodule growth avoidance is inherent to HfO2 films deposited by ALD technique at the disclosed thicknesses. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like thicknesses (i.e. thickness within ranged claimed in original claim 2, paragraphs [0036], [0056] and Fig. 3A of the originally filed disclosure, see also paragraphs [0021] and [0024] of Chen’425 disclosing effective avoidance at thicknesses greater than 50Å (5 nm) ) which would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi to deposit HfO2 films at thicknesses effective to avoid pinhole, thin spot and nodule growth because Chen teaches that such thicknesses reduce defects of the deposited film.
Regarding claim 7:
Kakiuchi discloses that adhesives are used for bonding members such as channel substrates with nozzle plates for at least the flow channel ([0004], [0042], [0046], [0062], [0065]).
Regarding claim 14:
Kakiuchi discloses a step of adhering a protective member 30 onto the device substrate via an adhesive [polymeric material] ([0060]) prior to the deposition of the HfO2 layer by ALD (Fig. 10; [0111]).
While Kakiuchi does not expressly teach that the deposition of the HfO2 film is performed at a temperature range below a damage temperature of the polymeric material, Kakiuchi enables the production of a printing head with members adhered with an adhesive and the HfO2 film coating. Kakiuchi thus implies a desire to minimize factors that would imperil production of the printing head, including excessive process conditions such as excessive temperatures. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 to deposit the HfO2 film coating to perform the H2O film deposition at a temperature range that would not compromise [structurally degrade] the adhesive because it allows full production of the recited printing head, and thus there is an implication that process conditions are set such that no damage occurs during manufacturing, and as a matter of common sense to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to manufacture a final product.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 14 above.
Regarding claim 3:
Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 does not expressly teach that the target thickness is within the range recited within present claim 3.
However, Kakiuchi discloses that preferred embodiments of their method set the thickness of the deposited HfO2 film between 10nm to 30nm ([0067]), an overlapping range.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 8 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 14 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US 20170072692 A1 (hereinafter “Chen’692”).
Regarding claim 8:
Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 does not expressly teach a step of adhering a non-wetting coating (NWC) to the deposited film of HfO2, wherein the material comprises the deposited film of HfO2 with the adhered non-wetting coating.
Chen’692 is directed to printheads formed from a die stack and nozzle plate bonded together, and the methods of fabricating such printheads (Abstract, [0039], Fig. 4). Chen’692 discloses that their method comprises a step of applying a passivation layer by ALD, wherein the passivation layer may comprise e.g. HfO2 ([0033], [0038]; claim 3); and applying [adhering] a non-wetting layer onto outer surfaces of a printhead ([0023], [0038]; claims 3, 5). The non-wetting layer helps prevent ink from puddling around nozzles of the printhead ([0023]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 by adhering a non-wetting coating (NWC) to the deposited film of HfO2, wherein the material comprises the deposited film of HfO2 with the adhered non-wetting coating because Chen’692 teaches that such non-wetting coating helps in preventing puddling of ink around nozzles and other surfaces of the printhead such as passage channels.
Regarding claim 9:
Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 does not expressly teach the steps of depositing at least one from a group consisting of Al2O3 or SiO2, on the deposited film of HfO2; and depositing a NWC on the deposited at least one from the group.
With regards to the step of depositing at least one from a group consisting of Al2O3 or SiO2, on the deposited film of HfO2:
However, Chen’425 discloses a passivation layer stack may comprise alternating layers of dielectric materials may be used in order to provide robust surfaces, robust chemical protection, and energy efficient printheads ([0010], [0015] – [0017], [0027] – [0028]). The stack may comprise alternating layers of e.g. HfO2, Al2O3 and/or SiO2. Kakiuchi also discloses that aluminum oxides are a known, suitable passivation layer ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 by including the steps of depositing at least one from a group consisting of Al2O3 or SiO2, on the deposited film of HfO2; and depositing a NWC on the deposited at least one from the group because Chen’425 teaches that at least aluminum oxides are known to be suitable as passivation layers and because Chen’425 teaches that the deposition of HfO2 with Al2O3 or SiO2 can lead to more energy efficient printheads.
With regards to the step of depositing a NWC on the deposited at least one from the group:
The disclosure of Chen’692 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 8 also applies to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 by including the step of depositing a NWC on the deposited at least one from the group because Chen’692 teaches that such non-wetting coating helps in preventing puddling of ink around nozzles and other surfaces of the printhead such as passage channels.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 14 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US 20170368823 A1 (hereinafter “Chen’823”).
Regarding claim 4:
Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 does not expressly teach that the deposition of the HfO2 film is performed in a temperature range between 185°C and 275°C inclusive.
D4 is directed to ALD passivation for vias, particularly in liquid ejection devices (Abstract; [0001]). D4 discloses that their ALD passivation method comprises: depositing a hafnium oxide film into vias as part of a passivation stack by ALD, wherein the ALD is performed at a temperature range between 150°C and 250 °C with water as the oxidizer/oxygen-bearing reactant (Fig. 6; [0025], [0041]). Hafnium oxide films that are deposited at such conditions and with such reactants enables pin-hole free passivation that effectively prevents erosion of underlying layers, such as first and second metal layers in the context of D4 ([0054] – [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 by depositing the HfO2 layer of Kakiuchi by an ALD process that performs the deposition at a temperature range between 150°C and 250 °C because D4 teaches that hafnium oxide films that are deposited at such conditions enables pin-hole free passivation that effectively prevents erosion of underlying layers. Furthermore, as the temperature range of such modification overlaps with that of the claimed temperature range, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 14 above, and further in view of Hamaguchi et al US20160263894 A1 (hereinafter “Hamaguchi”).
Regarding claim 13:
Kakiuchi discloses a step of adhering a protective member 30 onto the device substrate via an adhesive [polymeric material] ([0060]) prior to the deposition of the HfO2 layer by ALD (Fig. 10; [0111]).
While Kakiuchi does not expressly teach that the deposition of the HfO2 film is performed at a temperature range below a damage temperature of the polymeric material, Kakiuchi enables the production of a printing head with members adhered with an adhesive and the HfO2 film coating. Kakiuchi thus implies a desire to minimize factors that would imperil production of the printing head, including excessive process conditions such as excessive temperatures. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 to deposit the HfO2 film coating to perform the H2O film deposition at a temperature range that would not compromise [structurally degrade] the adhesive because it allows full production of the recited printing head, and thus there is an implication that process conditions are set such that no damage occurs during manufacturing, and as a matter of common sense to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to manufacture a final product.
Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 does not expressly teach that the polymeric material is a thermoset plastic.
Hamaguchi is directed to manufacturing method of a head which includes a channel formation substrate having two piezoelectric actuator rows formed thereon, a driving circuit, and a driving circuit board which is provided with a first bump and a second
bump (Abstract; [0001]). Hamaguchi discloses that their manufacturing method comprises bonding a channel formation substrate and a driving circuit board with an adhesive layer ([0083], [0086]). The adhesive may be inter alia an epoxy resin or silicon resin [thermoset polymers] ([0084], [0075], [0150]).
contact with each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 by having the adhesive disclosed in Kakiuchi be a thermoset plastic such as epoxy resin or silicon resin as taught by Hamaguchi because as taught by Hamaguchi, the use of such resins is known to be suitable for the purpose of adhesive layers that are portions in a machine comonent. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki JP 2009073144 A (machine translation provided, hereinafter “Nishiwaki”) in view of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or in further view of Chen’425.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 15, 16:
As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes that the subject matter of present claim 1 and claims dependent on claim 1 are broader embodiments of the claimed invention that encompasses the subject matter of present claim 15. The discussion below focuses on the elements of present claim 15 and claims dependent on present claim 15, but also apply to present claim 1 and enumerated claims dependent on claim 1.
Nishiwaki is directed to a liquid ejecting head and manufacturing method thereof ([0001]). Nishiwaki discloses that their manufacturing method comprises:
providing a flow path-forming substrate wafer that has been previously processed according to other disclosed steps of their manufacturing method [component of a machine], wherein the flow path-forming substrate includes terminals 124 [electrical islands] of a drive circuit 120 on a top surface of the substrate (Fig. 6a; [0036]);
depositing a gold thin film over the top surface of the substrate and subsequently patterning the gold thin film to form lead electrodes 90 (Fig. 6b; [0037]); and forming reservoir portions 31 and pressure generator chamber 12 ( Fig. 6c, Fig. 7a – 7c; [0017], [0038] – [0042]).
The various portions and chambers are part of an inkjet recording head that holds ink ([0002]).
Nishiwaki does not expressly teach the steps of:
selecting a target thickness for a film, the film being HfO2, ZrO2, TiO2, or a chemically resistant oxide or nitride;
depositing the film as a conformal layer on the component at the target thickness, including on a surface of the at least one internal cavity and the metal on the electrical contacts, to form a coated component, wherein the material comprises the deposited film as a protective coating; and
selectively removing/excluding portions of the deposited film, to expose the metal over the plurality of electrical contacts.
The discussion of Kakiuchi and Chen’425 in the rejections of instant claims 1, 2, 5, 6 also apply to instant claim 15, mutatis mutandis. Thus, Kakiuchi discloses the step of selection of a target thickness for an HfO2 film. Additionally, Kakiuchi discloses that their method comprises: providing a first mask onto the upper surfaces of a device substrate and a through-hole that accesses a connecting terminal [related to “on the metal surface under the broadest reasonable interpretation”] ([0058], [0090]; Fig. 3, Fig. 8); depositing the HfO2 on the surface of the mask and surrounding surfaces of the device substrate; and removing the mask to expose the connecting terminal [selectively removing portions of deposited film] (Fig. 10, 11; [0110] – [0117]). Kakiuchi discloses that the selective deposition helps prevent deposition onto the through-hole region, which suggests prevention of coating the HfO2 film onto the connecting terminal contact ([0106]). Furthermore, coating the exterior surfaces of the substrate aid in suppression of ink leakages, jetting defects and member exfoliation ([0112]). Finally Kakiuchi discloses that their protective film aids in the preventing erosion of flow channels and other surfaces due to inks that are stored within ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nishiwaki to include the steps of selecting a target thickness for a film, the film being HfO2, ZrO2, TiO2, or a chemically resistant oxide or nitride; and depositing the film as a conformal layer on the component at the target thickness, including on a surface of the at least one internal cavity and the metal (via a mask) on the electrical contacts [Nishiwaki’s terminals and lead electrodes], to form a coated component, wherein the material comprises the deposited film as a protective coating because Kakiuchi teaches that such a protective coating aids in the preventing erosion of flow channels and other surfaces due to inks that are stored within a manufactured recording head, and because Kakiuchi teaches coating the exterior surfaces of the substrate aid in suppression of ink leakages, jetting defects and member exfoliation. The disclosed and selected thicknesses are inherent or obvious for the reasons stated above in the rejection of claims 1,2,5,6 as anticipated by/ obvious over Kakiuchi as evidenced/in view of Chen’425.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nishiwaki by selectively removing/excluding portions of the deposited film, to expose the metal over the plurality of electrical contacts because Kakiuchi suggests that such a removal is necessary to enable electrical contacts to be available for connection.
Regarding claim 17:
Nishiwaki in view of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or in further view of Chen’425 does not expressly teach a step of adhering a non-wetting coating (NWC) to the deposited film of HfO2, wherein the material comprises the deposited film of HfO2 with the adhered non-wetting coating.
Chen’692 is directed to printheads formed from a die stack and nozzle plate bonded together, and the methods of fabricating such printheads (Abstract, [0039], Fig. 4). Chen’692 discloses that their method comprises a step of applying a passivation layer by ALD, wherein the passivation layer may comprise e.g. HfO2 ([0033], [0038]; claim 3); and applying [adhering] a non-wetting layer onto outer surfaces of a printhead ([0023], [0038]; claims 3, 5). The non-wetting layer helps prevent ink from puddling around nozzles of the printhead ([0023]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nishiwaki in view of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or in further view of Chen’425 by adhering a non-wetting coating (NWC) to the deposited film of HfO2, wherein the material comprises the deposited film of HfO2 with the adhered non-wetting coating because Chen’692 teaches that such non-wetting coating helps in preventing puddling of ink around nozzles and other surfaces of the printhead such as passage channels.
Regarding claim 18:
Nishiwaki in view of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or in further view of Chen’425 does not expressly teach the steps of depositing at least one from a group consisting of Al2O3 or SiO2, on the deposited film of HfO2; and depositing a NWC on the deposited at least one from the group.
With regards to the step of depositing at least one from a group consisting of Al2O3 or SiO2, on the deposited film of HfO2:
However, Chen’425 discloses a passivation layer stack may comprise alternating layers of dielectric materials may be used in order to provide robust surfaces, robust chemical protection, and energy efficient printheads ([0010], [0015] – [0017], [0027] – [0028]). The stack may comprise alternating layers of e.g. HfO2, Al2O3 and/or SiO2. Kakiuchi also discloses that aluminum oxides are a known, suitable passivation layer ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Chen’425 by including the steps of depositing at least one from a group consisting of Al2O3 or SiO2, on the deposited film of HfO2; and depositing a NWC on the deposited at least one from the group because Chen’425 teaches that at least aluminum oxides are known to be suitable as passivation layers and because Chen’425 teaches that the deposition of HfO2 with Al2O3 or SiO2 can lead to more energy efficient printheads.
With regards to depositing a NWC on the deposited at least one from the group:
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nishiwaki in view of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or in further view of Chen’425 by adhering a non-wetting coating (NWC) to the deposited stack, wherein the material comprises the deposited film of HfO2 with the adhered non-wetting coating because Chen’692 teaches that such non-wetting coating helps in preventing puddling of ink around nozzles and other surfaces of the printhead such as passage channels.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or in further view of Chen’425 as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18 above, and further in view of Li et al. US20070033784 A1 (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 19, 20:
Nishiwaki in view of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or in further view of Chen’425 does not expressly teach shielding a first portion of the component using a physical mask having at least one aperture to expose a second portion of the coated component; and using ion milling to remove a portion of the HfO2 deposited film from the exposed second portion of the coated component, and in particular to expose conductive surfaces or gold surfaces.
Li is directed to method for producing an actuator device (Abstract; [0001]). Li discloses that their method comprises: depositing and patterning an upper electrode film 80 overlying a piezoelectric layer 70 (Fig. 5A and 5B; [0058]); depositing and patterning a metal layer 91 that acts as a lead electrode contacts for the upper electrode film ([0053]); depositing an insulation film 95 of e.g. aluminum oxide on the entire surface of the wafer, including the surfaces of the lead electrodes; and depositing the insulation film by dry etching e.g. ion milling ([0054]). The patterning steps may be performed by depositing mask patterns [mask shielding with openings] ([0053]). The patterning and deposition of the insultation film protects the underlying layers, such as the piezoelectric layer, from exterior moisture with exception to the connection portions the lead electrode ([0035] – [0036]). Li therefore suggests that the exception to connection portions is to enable driving of the overall actuator device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nishiwaki in view of Kakiuchi as evidenced by or in further view of Chen’425 by shielding a first portion of the component using a physical mask having at least one aperture to expose a second portion of the coated component; and using ion milling to remove a portion of the HfO2 deposited film from the exposed second portion of the coated component, and in particular to expose conductive surfaces or gold surfaces because Li teaches that the patterning and etching of insulation layers (which HfO2 films are a type thereof) by ion milling maximalizes protection of underlying layers from moisture while enabling driving of the overall actuator device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shimada et al. US 20090213188 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717